By Nicholas Drummond
This is an updated version of an article originally written for the Wavell Room blog in June 2018 (seewavellroom.com🇧🇷 Advocates for a flatter hierarchy by reducing the number of levels we have today by a third. This is a contentious issue, but is based on the belief that if the British Armed Forces are to reflect the nation they serve, they must embody the way in which society today has evolved. One of the most important changes we have seen in industry and commerce in recent years is the reduction in the number of career ladders. Today, the professional competence of an employee is just as important as the length of service or the management position that he or she holds.
(Above) Brigadier in the British Army. (Image: National Army Museum)
the case for change
Today the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force have 16, 18 and 23 different ranks respectively. This is a significant hierarchy compared to other organizations, including commercial and government entities, especially when it includes five levels of overall classification. Those defending the existing hierarchical structure argue that the labor-intensive manner in which the armed forces operate requires a hierarchy that allows for effective leadership and control at all levels of each service. You need to know who is responsible and who is accountable when a commander is wounded, killed or captured. Additionally, the current ranking system has been in use for over a century and has proven useful in two major conflicts as well as numerous minor wars. This means that even the most compelling arguments for change will meet with strong resistance. Given the likely reluctance of senior officials to accept the need for change, the first task of this article is to explain why the system is not working and the benefits of changing it.
(Above) The NATO Forces classification system allows for 10 officer ranks and 9 other ranks. Do we really need such a hierarchical and layered system?
Five reasons to consider simplifying the total number of ranks in the British Army:
1. The armed forces are smaller.The total number of British police officers is 123,142[1]However, the police manage to take only nine different steps in total. Compare that to any major UK service company and you'll see they have lean structures too. They typically only have five levels of management: Associate, Associate-Principal, Principal, Director, and General Manager. So the first reason to think about rationalization is the size and structure of the British armed forces. The times of a standing army of 300,000 men are long gone. Britain's largest service, the Army, has just 77,000[2]Soldiers Is the leadership of soldiers, sailors and crew members, even in combat, so demanding that we need such a wide variety of hierarchies? With the British armed forces having evolved so much over the last century, a flatter structure can really simplify things and make leadership easier. In addition, warship crews, battle group structures, and battle squadron compositions became much smaller. We can expect this trend to continue, especially as we make more use of AI and autonomous weapon systems.
The reduction in the size of the UK armed forces has not been accompanied by a reduction in the number of senior officers. After all, why get rid of a large number of competent senior executives with experience and skill? However, this means that the British Army has become heavy. Today the army has 207 generals (brigadiers and above). That's almost more generals than tanks.[3]Despite this, there is still one general for every 400 soldiers in the army. Likewise, the Royal Navy has 121 admirals (Commodore and above) but only 49 active warships.[3]
2. The style of leadership has evolved.Discipline and obedience to vital direct orders are still paramount, but today's soldiers, sailors and crew members are more self-disciplined and educated.[4]than their predecessors and can therefore think, judge and act more independently. This means military leadership is less dependent on rigid chains of command to get things done. Better trained junior executives lead directly to more competent junior executives, which means command can be delegated with confidence. This is important, especially since personnel on the ground are likely to have a more informed view of a tactical situation than senior officers hiding at headquarters many miles from the action. The concept of the "strategic cable"[5]The realization that junior commanders, regardless of their position, can directly influence mission success by leveraging time-sensitive information that allows them to make the best possible decision at the right place and time stems directly from this decentralization of leadership.This means that we can and should trust young leaders more.
Today's soldiers no longer need to be intimidated to obey orders, unlike their over-reactive forebears during World War I, who were often portrayed as fearing their own NCOs more than the enemy. This is because today's militaries are more motivated and self-disciplined, especially since we have professional and non-conscripted armed forces. Special Forces unit leaders tend to adopt a more relaxed command style, knowing that the soldiers under their command have a strong sense of purpose and the highest standards of self-discipline. But such attitudes are not unique to the UKSF; are registered trademarks of the three UK services.
3. Flatter structures tend to encourage more teamwork and interdependence.Another reason to consider fewer tiers is that flatter structures encourage teamwork and mutual trust. The quality of NCOs today is excellent, and fewer NCOs would make it easier to get bottom-up feedback. We all know how difficult it is to “tell the truth to those in power,” but it is imperative as lives depend on good leadership decisions. The apocryphal story that illustrates this is that of the Field Marshal whose staff officers only tell you what they think you want to hear, not what is actually going on. So he leaves his headquarters and visits a forward unit, where he meets a platoon commander who tells him the unvarnished truth. Less hierarchical structures promote good communication between team members, both upwards and downwards. They foster group dynamics that encourage cohesion and collaboration. This allows tasks to be completed in a way that focuses on who is doing what rather than who is responsible. In the past, a clear chain of command was essential because communication was so difficult over the din of battle and casualty numbers were often so high. But even during World War I, private soldiers naturally took command of sections or even platoons when the established chain of command broke down.
4🇧🇷 The technical competence to operate different weapon systems has become just as important as unit management.🇧🇷 Today's armed forces increasingly rely on weapon systems and equipment that require a high level of technical skill to operate. This means that force structures must focus more on professional skills than ranks. A simplified classification structure would help separate classification from function. It also means that appointments can be based more on ability than seniority. We're seeing more and more of the importance of rewarding talent earlier with more responsibility. If we want to retain talent, we must not only recognize competence, but also dedication and commitment.
Another benefit of this approach is that it can be used to decouple pay from years of service and absolute seniority. It may still be necessary to establish minimum and maximum salary ranges for each rank, and such an approach should apply to non-commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers as well as non-commissioned officers, but it would provide greater incentive to perform well and to motivation and retention contribute. So you can define salary tiers for each tier, but include some sort of annual bonus for meritorious service and skills. This means that a younger and more promising junior can be paid as much or more than an older and less motivated senior. In any case, if we tie pay more to performance than hours, we could see other efficiencies, including a reduction in duplication.
Professional competence has to do with education. Many soldiers who join the military may be bright and able, but have not benefited from the same quality of training that commissioned graduates enjoy. One of the great strengths of the three services is that they facilitate personal and professional development. The ability to unlock potential and create new post-service opportunities has long been a recruiting aid. As industry and commerce demand higher standards of technical competence, the Navy, Army and RAF are no longer able to train military personnel to the same standards as commercial companies. If so, technical education should be prioritized again.
5🇧🇷 British society has become much more classless🇧🇷 Another reason to consider the change is that the existing hierarchical structure reflects a formerly much more socially stratified British society that existed until after the First World War. Today Britain is a meritocracy, and while not entirely classless, the divisions of the past have become irrelevant. Origin and family ties no longer play a role; What matters is who you are as a person and what qualities you bring with you. That means where you went to school doesn't matter anymore. Former Chief of Defense Staff, Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach attended government school and rose to the top of the armed forces. Twenty or thirty years ago, non-private education might have counted against you. It should be so. Higher standards of education have done much to promote equality and it is true that the British armed forces reflect today's society. This means that not only do we have fewer ranks, but we also need to remove some of the non-professional barriers that keep talented NCOs from earning commissions. Also, we must consider the need for a side entrance. Experienced civilians entering or re-entering the military and accustomed to flat hierarchies are likely to find current structures cumbersome and intolerably rigid.This can be detrimental to attracting tech-savvy employees.
A key part of simplifying the total number of ranks is reducing the demarcation between officers and enlisted men. Fewer higher ranks will help the military become less stratified and classless. In particular, it would be helpful to allow non-commissioned officers to assume leadership roles early in their careers and to ease the transition from enlisted to non-commissioned officer status.
We talk a lot about reshaping the armed forces to be a more accurate representation of society, but the UK government envisions the integration of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups into the UK armed forces[6]suggest that more needs to be done. Anyone who can meet the required standards must qualify for promotion. Creating a flatter and fairer ranking structure is a step in the right direction to give talented people the recognition they deserve, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity.
Education as a key factor for a flatter ranking structure
As already indicated, education is an important part of a flatter hierarchy. Therefore, offering a professional qualification to all who want it, regardless of age, position or entity, is a key enabler. Education is expensive and time-consuming, but while training prepares you to face expected situations, education that sharpens your mental abilities helps: that is, teaches you to think, prepares you for the unexpected. When it comes to solving problems, especially in extreme circumstances, education can be a power multiplier. On a practical level, the professional training will help employees at all levels gain more recognition during the service. It also paves the way for a career beyond services. Positioning services as a route to a desired career is an effective way to attract talent. We know that professional qualifications for commercial and technical professions have become enormously important. The challenge is to provide training that gives each service the technical skills it needs while ensuring certain qualifications are useful beyond military service. A big part of this is fostering a mindset that values education and career development as career enhancers. We also need to look beyond the root notes. Allowing personnel to study for graduate degrees, masters degrees, and doctoral degrees would go a long way in promoting the military as a source of thought leadership.
The opposite is also true. Can an officer join the Bundeswehr without a diploma and command more qualified personnel than he? Or to put it another way, can leadership be effective without technical training that reinforces the authority of command decisions?
If a reduced rank structure is desired, what is the optimal number of ranks?
With the case established for a flatter classification structure, the next question is: What is the optimal number of levels? Going from level 18 to 9 can be a very radical change. But any reduction cannot be an arbitrary decision, but is based on the minimum number of levels of command required to ensure effective leadership, control and communication in combat. At a basic level, we can break down the command levels as follows:
Against this background, a reduction to only 12 ranks is proposed. This would includesixofficer posts andsixregistered ranks. Using the army as an example, the lowest rank would be soldier and the highest would be general. Although the number of officers of the same rank increased, the definition of hierarchies required for effective command was achievedcasts, for example. Company commander, ship captain or squadron commander. The following six commissioned and six non-commissioned positions are proposed:
(Above) The proposed simplification of the British Forces rank structure would reduce the total to 6 officer ranks and 6 enlisted ranks. The approach would aim to harmonize the titles and insignia as much as possible, but without sacrificing the heritage and tradition of each service.
Any approach to rationalizing the overall number of ranks in the British Armed Forces must be forward looking and relevant to current needs. All three services require you to manage the appropriate command levels. You need to maintain tradition and ties to the past. The resulting structure should be simple and easy to understand.
In the interests of similarity between services and simplification between different branches of the Army, it is proposed that the anachronistic and confusing practice of having different names and insignia for the same rank be replaced with a common structure for all three services with only minor variations. . Three stripes would therefore designate an Army Sergeant, as is usual for a Royal Air Force sergeant, but as is tradition this rank would still be designated Warrant Officer in the Royal Navy and would use a system of anchors.
We must also recognize the increase in the number of women serving in all three ministries. While it is acceptable to call enlisted soldiers "private", "private", "gunner" and "sapper", it is incorrect to call a female soldier "marine", "king" or "guard". This also applies to the Royal Navy with the rank of "Able Seaman" or the RAF with "Aircraftsman". It is therefore proposed to introduce gender-neutral classifications. All enlisted men within the infantry would be called "Private", while Royal Navy enlisted men would be called "Able Sailor", with the corresponding rank "Able Navy" being introduced for female enlisted men. However, as in the Army, it may be simpler to refer to all enlisted Marines as "sailor" or "skill class". Similar, Royal Air Force personnel would be called "aircraftsman" or "aircraftswoman", although it might be worth exploring whether a new, simpler neural gender classification could be introduced, such as "technician".
To complement the reduction in levels, four levels of technical qualification are proposed with service marks indicating the level of competence attained. For each service, these may include:
- Default level of military skills
- GCSE equivalents
- equivalent degree
- Equivalent to advanced degree
Some of the professional development would of course include standard military subjects such as weapons, doctrine and tactics, C4I, information technology and logistics, but other subjects such as accounting and finance, modern languages, politics and diplomacy could also be included. Encouraging all levels to increase their scientific knowledge would promote high technical standards in all specialized industries, e.g. law and mechanical engineering.
There can be a big difference in how officers treat a junior rank having an advanced degree or higher level of technical proficiency. When you get the opinion of a technical expert, you can dramatically improve decision making and therefore operational effectiveness.
When considering the implementation of a reduced number of squadrons, it is important to focus on the concept of a simplified approach to command levels, rather than the squadron names or insignia used. Therefore, although the following examples are illustrative, they are in no way binding.
(Supreme) Navy officers would use thoseVonvonexisting ring-type rank insignia with a thinner third ringgive upd🇧🇷 There are two senior admiral ranks, two middle ranks and two junior ranks. Registered ranks remain unchanged at six levels.and the existingBadges are also held using the traditional width systemrs.It may be desirable to add stripes corresponding to the ranks of Corporal, Corporal and Sergeant in the Army and Air Force to facilitate identification between ranks.
(Above) Creating a reduced rank structure for the army is more problematic due to the traditional use of multiple types of insignia. It is proposed that, as in the Navy, only two insignia of rank be used, the whistle and the crossed sword and baton. As with the Navy, this creates two general officer ranks, two intermediate ranks, and two junior ranks. A company or squadron would be commanded by the captain. A regiment would be commanded by a major or colonel. A brigade can be commanded by a colonel or a deputy general. Enlisted ranks would continue to use the traditional stripes, but the WO2 and S/Sgt ranks will be merged into a new warrant officer rank.
(Above) The Royal Air Force would continue to use existing styles of ring badge, but as with the Navy, the thinner third ring would disappear. The enlisted rank structure follows the army as before, but is mergedVolarThe Sergeant, Chief Engineer and Aircrew are promoted to the new rank of Corporal.
An OR-1 (Lieutenant) would be promoted to OR-2 (Commander/Captain/Squad Leader) after 3 to 4 years of service. An OR-2 would be promoted to OR-3 (Captain/Major/Group Captain) after 8–10 years of service. An OR-3 would be promoted to an OR-4 (Commodore/Colonel/Air Commodore) after 15 to 20 years of service. An OR-4 may be promoted to OR-5 (Air Vice Admiral/Vice General or Vice Marshal) soon after attaining OR-4, based on merit, or not promoted at all. In all three services, OR-5s and OR-6s (Admiral, General, and Air Marshal) would be rare, with no more than 40-50 per service.
Compensation would be linked to function rather than absolute length of service. it would also reflect personal development and level of professional development achieved. For example, an experienced and highly competent Marine Petty Officer may receive higher pay than a less technically qualified junior lieutenant.
Reducing all three services from your current number of reviews to just 12 at the same time can be overwhelming. If this is the case, it can be advantageous to switch to a preliminary number of 14 levelsandofficer ranks andsixregistered ranks.
(Above) A tentative approach to reducing ranks could simplify the total from 18 to 14. Soldier ranks would be reduced to 6 ranks, as previously described, while officer ranks would be reduced to 8 ranks instead of 6. In this case, a new rank would be added between Lieutenant and Captain while retaining a third rank of General. The rank of Lieutenant Captain in the Army is designed to be consistent with the rank of Lieutenant Commander in the Navy.
In short, any attempt to simplify the total number of ranks would require an overhaul of the NATO-wide system so that all member states' armed forces reflect the same number of tiers of command. If the advantages were widely accepted, changing the structures within NATO would not be so difficult to implement. The only real obstacle to change can be the attitude of senior officials, who feel threatened or marginalized by an apparent loss of status. Therefore, this exercise must be political rather than a military-led initiative.
Regardless of the resulting process or number of patents, the goal is to create a flatter structure with fewer levels of command that better reflects how non-military and commercial organizations operate. This would encourage more cooperation and teamwork, but would not necessarily lead to a loss of control or reduced standards. Most importantly, such a reduction would result in technical qualifications becoming more important, with better recognition and rewards. Not everyone wants to be a leader, but competent people still want their professional skills to be respected and rewarded.
As weapons and communications systems become more sophisticated, higher priority must be given to the technical proficiency of the people who operate them. Prioritizing professional and personal development will improve technical standards. Also, it will give people a greater sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. It will also allow people to leave services and return later. If qualified personnel can be persuaded to return to service, not only will the return on the initial investment in their training be maximized, but the standard of the entire force will be raised.
To some, these suggestions will resemble heresy. But the purpose of this discussion is not to destroy or compromise the many great military traditions of the past, but rather to reflect today's society and the way the military must function to be effective.
_________________________________________
Nuts:
[1] Source: Ministry of Interior data, November 2017
[2] Source: UK Ministry of Defense Quarterly Armed Forces Personnel Statistics, 1 April 2018
[3] Those:quarterly statistics of service personnel,, British Ministry of Defense, July 2018 edition[4] Source: OECD Education at a Glance, 2011. Over the past 50 years, higher education has become more accessible to young people, with 81% of the population completing secondary education, compared to 45% before 1960. ; while 37% of young adults graduate from college, up from 13% before 1960.
[5] The Strategic Corps: Leadership in the War of the Three Blocs. Gen. Charles C. Krulak, Marine Magazine. (January 1999)
[6] Quelle: UK Armed Forces, Biennial Diversity Statistics, 1. Oktober 2017
FAQs
Why is hierarchy important in the military? ›
An individual's placement in the hierarchy determines his or her level of authority. One of the values of the military is respect for authority and this hierarchical structure. Those higher up in the chain of command have earned that rank and deserve respect.
What is the hierarchy of the army? ›There are 13 enlisted Army ranks: private, private second class, private first class, specialist, corporal, sergeant, staff sergeant, sergeant first class, master sergeant, first sergeant, sergeant major, command sergeant major and sergeant major of the Army.
How is the British Army structure? ›The command structure is hierarchical with divisions and brigades responsible for administering groupings of smaller units. Major Units are regiment or battalion-sized with minor units being smaller, either company sized sub-units or platoons.
What is the hierarchy of war? ›In commonly accepted military terminology, there is a hierarchy of military combat, with war as its highest level, followed by campaign, battle, engagement, action, and duel. A war is an armed conflict, or a state of belligerence, involving military combat between two factions, states, nations, or coalitions.
Why is it important to understand hierarchy? ›Hierarchy ensures accountability
An effective hierarchy makes leaders accountable for results, and provisions for their replacing failures with someone new — sometimes through internal promotion. That's how hierarchy ultimately serve the success of the organisation as whole — including owners, managers, and employees.
Hierarchy is an arrangement of items in which the items are represented as being "above", "below", or "at the same level as" one another. A hierarchy is a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.
How does military hierarchy work? ›The military rank system defines dominance, authority, and responsibility in a military hierarchy. It incorporates the principles of exercising power and authority into the military chain of command—the succession of commanders superior to subordinates through which command is exercised.
Who is at the top of the military hierarchy? ›What Is the Highest Military Rank? The highest military rank is O-10, or "five-star general." It is symbolized by five stars for each of the military services. Although it is currently a part of the military service rank system, no officer has been promoted to it since World War II, when the rank was created.
What are the order of ranks in the British army? ›| United Kingdom | USA | |
|---|---|---|
| British Army | US Army | |
| officers | Brigadier | Brigadier General |
| Colonel | Colonel | |
| Lieutenant Colonel | Lieutenant Colonel |
British strengths included having an much larger and more experienced army, the strongest navy in the world, and alliances with Native Americans. British weaknesses included fighting in an unknown territory and debate among the British people if the war was necessary due to the costly nature of it.
Is the British Army effective? ›
One of the most highly regarded and best equipped armies in the world, the British Army is proud of its heritage delivering success in combat through the courage and absolute commitment of its soldiers.
What were 3 advantages of the British Army? ›Britain's military was the best in the world. Their soldiers were well equipped, well disciplined, well paid, and well fed. The British navy dominated the seas. Funds were much more easily raised by the Empire than by the Continental Congress.
What was the structure of the British Army in ww1? ›An infantry battalion was divided into a headquarters, machine gun section and four companies (usually lettered A to D, 1 to 4, or W to Z) of 227 officers and men. Companies were split into four platoons of approximately 50 men, with a platoon being subdivided into four sections of 12 men.
What was the British military structure in ww2? ›The 85 divisional formations included 2 airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, 1 cavalry, 10 coastal defence (known as County Divisions) and 49 infantry divisions. At the end of the war, in 1945, the British Army had 24 divisions.
What was the structure of the British Army in 1914? ›In 1914, each British infantry division consisted of three infantry brigades, each of four battalions, with two machine guns per battalion, (24 in the division).
What are the advantages and disadvantages of hierarchical structure? ›- Advantage: Clear Line of Authority. ...
- Advantage: Clear Lines of Communication. ...
- Advantage: Clear Results. ...
- Disadvantage: Isolation and Siloed Thinking. ...
- Disadvantage: Centralization of Power.
In sum, our relative positions within a social hierarchy alter how we perceive, think about, and react to others, as well as how others perceive us. These effects may occur due to the benefits afforded to high status individuals, or due to power and prestige associated with high rank.
What is an example of hierarchical structure? ›Amazon is an example of an organization with a hierarchical structure, largely due to its size. As the largest internet retailer, the company currently employs approximately 560,000 people around the world. With the hierarchical structure, all of Amazon's employees report up to the founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos.
Why is hierarchy a problem? ›The danger of hierarchy is that it tends not to generate a wide range of information. "The more complex the task, the more likely we are to make a mistake or miss something critical" in a hierarchical organization. Hierarchy can also suppress dissent, because people don't want to take on those at the top.
What is a hierarchy Short answer? ›Generally speaking, hierarchy refers to an organizational structure in which items are ranked in a specific manner, usually according to levels of importance.
How do you explain the hierarchy? ›
A hierarchy is a system of organizing people into different ranks or levels of importance, for example in society or in a company. Like most other American companies with a rigid hierarchy, workers and managers had strictly defined duties.
What is the hierarchy of ranks in the Air Force? ›Enlisted Air Force ranks are broken down into three levels: Airmen (E-1 through E-4), non-commissioned officers (E-5 and E-6) and senior non-commissioned officers (E-7 through E-9). The Air Force is the only one of the five branches of the U.S. military where NCO status is achieved at the grade of E-5.
Are military ranks the same in all branches? ›Each branch has its own ranking system
Although the branches overlap in some respects, they do not share a ranking system. For example, admiral and ensign are exclusive ranks to the Navy and the Coast Guard. Similarly, major, colonel and general are all exclusive to the Army, Marines and Air Force.
Field Marshal
The highest rank in the British Army since 1736.
British Army personnel are ranked according to level, from the lowest (privates) to the highest (generals). Above private soldiers there are three types of officer: non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers.
What rank is major in the British Army? ›Major (Maj) is a military rank which is used by both the British Army and Royal Marines. The rank is superior to captain and subordinate to lieutenant colonel. The insignia for a major is a crown. The equivalent rank in the Royal Navy is lieutenant commander, and squadron leader in the Royal Air Force.
What are the 5 branches of the British military? ›...
Cadets
- Army cadets.
- Royal Air Force (RAF) cadets.
- Royal Navy cadets.
Royal Family in the Armed Forces
The Queen holds the position of Colonel-in-Chief of numerous regiments in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth.
Within the Army there is a definite order of seniority: Household troops (ie the Horse Cavalry and Foot Guards) come first, followed by the Cavalry/Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Infantry and then the supporting arms and services in order of date of formation.
What are some disadvantages of the British army? ›What Disadvantages Did the British Army Face in the Revolutionary War? One major disadvantage or weakness of the British army was that it was fighting in a distant land. Great Britain had to ship soldiers and supplies across the Atlantic, which was very costly, in order to fight the Revolutionary War.
What is a mistake British made when they had military advantage? ›
A major British mistake was failing to take sufficient advantage of Loyalists. Before the Revolutionary War began, some 50,000 Loyalists formed nearly 70 regiments to help the British maintain control the colonies. But British commanders did not trust the loyalists or respect their fighting ability.
What is one weakness of the British army? ›Although Great Britain possessed great military strength, one weakness of the British army was fighting on foreign soil.
Why was the British Army so successful? ›Justin Maciejewski: In the Second World War, the British Army achieved success by focusing a huge amount of resources on a smaller enemy force, then wearing them down through attrition. Battles were often very static, relying on numerical superiority. The battles were designed top down; everyone knew their place.
Why was British Army successful? ›The British had modern muskets and cannon were well equipped with a speed of firing and range which were better than Indian arms. For that matter, many Indian rulers imported European arms and employed European as military officers, but they never think about military strategy which was made them mere imitators.
What is the purpose of the British Army? ›The British Army protects the United Kingdom's interests at home and abroad, providing a safe and secure environment in which all British citizens can live and prosper.
Why are British values important in the military? ›Values form the basis of how we make judgements and decisions about all we do and do not do. Our Standards guide the practical application of our Values, ensuring that everything we do is Appropriate, Lawful and Professional. Teamwork is essential for a strong military force.
What are the values of the British Army? ›The Army Leadership Code is founded on our Values. To us, Courage, Discipline, Respect for Others, Integrity, Loyalty and Selfless Commitment are much more than words on a page, they are what the British Army stands for, and what sets us apart from society.
What is the strength of the British military? ›| Service | Regular | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Navy | 33,850 | 40,400 |
| Army | 86,240 | 120,660 |
| Air Force | 33,200 | 37,810 |
| Total | 153,290 | 198,880 |
State intervention was extended into areas such as rent control (1915), conscription (1916), price control (1917), rationing (1918) and even alcohol dilution. The war heralded seismic political shifts: the collapse of the Liberal Party, the rise of Labour and Britain's first near-democratic franchise.
Why was Britain so powerful in ww1? ›It had authority over the military in making final decisions for war – unlike in Germany where the military high command had immense power. Britain's foreign policy was based upon maintaining a balance of power in Europe. Britain was also determined to protect its vast global empire and its sea trade.
How did the Battle of Britain shape the outcome of the war? ›
Britain's victory in the Battle of Britain demonstrated the courage and resilience of the country's military and its people and allowed them to remain free from Nazi occupation. It also enabled the Americans to establish a base of operations in England to invade Normandy on D-Day in 1944.
How many divisions does the British Army have? ›“The British Army has two deployable divisions: 1st (UK) Division and 3rd (UK) Division.
Why was Britain so weak in ww2? ›In particular, there was a lack of home defences, especially against bombing. The heads of Britain's armed forces consistently warned Chamberlain that Britain was too weak to fight.
How did ww2 change British society? ›The 20 years between 1945 and 1965 witnessed unprecedented change across the British Isles. There was a dramatic rise in prosperity and living standards, as well as radical initiatives in health and welfare provision and in education.
Why is structure important in the army? ›The rank structure was put into place so that the soldiers had someone that was there to give out orders; also the rank structure was there to teach the newer enlisted respect. If the rank structure was not in place, there would be no order or discipline in the army.…
What is the organizational structure of the army? ›The Army is composed of an active duty component and a reserve component that comprises the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The operational Army conducts full-spectrum operations around the world, supported by institutional units. Without the institutional Army, the operational side can't function.
Why is the British army so small? ›Britain has generally maintained only a small regular army during peacetime, expanding this as required in time of war, due to Britain's traditional role as a sea power.
Why is it important that soldiers obey their superiors? ›Obedience, it is argued, is not only necessary for swift and efficient military action but is also a character trait that demonstrates trust in one's superiors and in the legitimacy of military demands. Military personnel need to cultivate the habit of obedience so that they do not hesitate when ordered to act.
Why is good order and discipline important in the military? ›To be effective in combat, units must maintain good order and discipline. Undisciplined units compromise mission effectiveness and readiness, putting soldiers at unnecessary risk. Good order and discipline is maintained through an efficient command philosophy and military justice process.
What is the original purpose of a hierarchy? ›The earliest meaning of hierarchy in English has to do with the ranks of different types of angels in the celestial order. The idea of categorizing groups according to rank readily transferred to the organization of priestly or other governmental rule.
What happens if you don't obey in the military? ›
The maximum punishment for a violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.
What is the most important form of military discipline? ›Self-Control – the most constructive form of military discipline which involves personal responsibility that goes beyond the threat of punishment or mere obedience.
Why is it important to respect soldiers? ›The Army Ethic calls on us to recognize the dignity and worth of all people, treat them with respect and compassion, and place others' needs above our own. Respect leads us to give our best effort for the team, expect the best in others and humbly realize we are part of a greater mission: defending America's freedom.
Why is discipline important in the British Army? ›Discipline is vital in our line of work; it means that orders are carried out and everyone is confident that they will not be let down by their teammates. Self-discipline is the best form of discipline - doing your job without being told.
Why is order and discipline important? ›Discipline provides people with rules to live their lives efficiently and effectively. When you have discipline in your life you can make small sacrifices in the present for a better life in the future. Discipline creates habits, habits make routines, and routines become who you are daily.
Why is it important to fulfill the responsibility of military service? ›Service members serve on the front lines, often in dangerous locations, to ensure the safety of the American people and our allies. Service members are a force for good in the world, which is why it is crucial we stand behind them as a Force Behind the Forces®.
Are hierarchies necessary? ›Importantly, the organization of social groups into a hierarchy serves an adaptive function that benefits the group as a whole. When essential resources are limited, individual skills vary, and reproductive fitness determines survival, hierarchies are an efficient way to divide goods and labor among group members.